[Off Topic & Political To Boot] Not Obama Is Not Enough

Oh! Yes! it is!

Paul Ryan (my heart goes pitter patter whenever I see videos of him) has a roadmap plan. George Will had an article on it with a link to the plan itself:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020503475.html

Here is an interesting article, with lots of specific proposals, by Peter Ferrara from the Friday, July 30 Wall Street Journal.  Ferrara served in the Reagan White House.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703700904575391041123607522.html?KEYWORDS=ferrara

It’s more than that.  We really need a plan to restore constitutional government.  Do the liberals really want to see the the Rebublicans wield the sort of powers and contempt for the rule of law that Obama has shown?  Do you want another Bush to behave as Obama has?  A return to constitutional government helps us all by limiting what either party can do to us.

Br. Michael (#4),

I would really appreciate hearing a definition of a “constitutional government” which a majority of the voters, think democracy, in a majority of the states, think federal republic, could agree upon.

5, that’s part of the problem.  In many ways is like discussing scripture with revisionists.  Yet I would define it as adhering to the original and objective meaning of the Constitution. That the plain meaning of words cannot be twisted to justify agendas.  If we cannot do that then we admit that words cannot communicate, that its all about raw power and we admit that a written constitution is worthless.  Indeed that the very idea of rule by law is meaningless.

I would suggest for example that a return to constitutional principles would require a declaration of war by the Congress before the President can commit troops abroad.  I would suggest that the President cannot use recess appointments and the appointment of “Czars” to avoid the requirement of “advise and consent” of the Congress.  I would suggest that the “Commerce Clause” cannot be expanded so as to destroy the federal structure and render the “limited” federal government limitless.

Br. Michael (#6),

Most of your observations are well said.

I would tend to view differently the president’s authority, as commander in chief, to commit U. S. Armed forces abroad without a declaration war by the congress.  Lack of that authority would have placed U. S. forces on deployments to other countries in unreasonable jeopardy many, many times.

Your analogy to theories regarding interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and the U. S. Constitution is appealing.  Many of those claiming new insights into the Holy Scriptures claim inspiration and/or validation by the Holy Spirit.  Those claiming such new insights into the U. S. Constitution must look for validation to thousands of federal judges and ultimately Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and possibly Elena Kagan.  At least we all get to hear the words of the federal judges and justices.

I would tend to view the lack of support by a majority of the voters in a majority of the states as the problem rather than part of the problem.

God bless.

Application of the Constitution must not depend on convenience nor are the Courts the high priests of the Constitution able to twist its words at their whim.  If so then the Constitution is meaningless and we might as well have blank parchment.

If the President has the sole authority to commit this Nation to war then neither party has the right to complain of another party’s war nor does the Congress.  The Constitution purported to create a government of limited powers which could only exercise the powers granted.  To use the Constitution as a grant of unlimited powers to an unrestrained federal government is to turn the Constitution on its head and to reduces the Government’s claim to legitimacy to be that of the bayonet.  The Federal Courts are reduced to sitting Constitutional conventions whose sole purpose it is to support the sovereign of which they are a part.

We the People have no role in such a Government.

I do not care for arbitrary rule by the Republicans any more that I do for the Democrats.  Nor do I care for the over reach of the Federal Government regardless of political party.

Disagree with Hanson. Let’s take one example:

Amnesty — under the euphemism of “comprehensive immigration reform” — would be a disaster. But in critiquing Obama’s policies, Republicans need to explain precisely how employer sanctions, increased patrols, and the completion of the fence will result in near-zero illegal entry. Then they must detail what exactly to do with the existing population of illegal aliens, which may well exceed 12 million — of whom most are neither felons nor unemployed.

Why? First, no Republican plan has any chance of being passed by both houses and surviving an Obama veto. A ‘comprehensive deatiled” plan simply gives Democrats something to counter-attack against. In addition any attempt to create such a plan would reveal the gaping fissures in the Republican party.

Better just to say: “Republicans believe that the essential thing is to gain complete border control and security. Then the rest of the problem can be dealt with”
Positive actions are necessary, but one of the advantages of opposition is that you can choose your own ground. The Contract with America worked pretty well, and its example might be followed. Pick out 100 things that conservatives would do, poll, and put the most popular ones at the top of the platform.

Real Toral (#9),

You wrote:  “A ‘comprehensive deatiled” plan simply gives Democrats something to counter-attack against.”

Possibly true, but that is not the whole story.

You also wrote:  “In addition any attempt to create such a plan would reveal the gaping fissures in the Republican party.”

We are doing a pretty good job of not just revealing those gapping fissures but highlighting and endorsing them right here in SFIF.

We Republicans are a heterogeneous lot; there has never been (to my knowledge) a significant national political party which was not.  Concentrating on our differences rather than the things on which we can agree is a major factor in our lack of success in electing more Republicans in 2008 and since.  Anyone who thinks the national Democratic Party is a homogenous lot must be smoking funny cigarettes.  Why have they been winning.  They have been, for the most part, concentrating on fighting us, and in the process, getting done what they want to do.

Now let’s look at some positive things.  In Arizona, where I live, we Republicans are also a pretty heterogeneous lot.  The main difference is that we try pretty hard to find things to agree on and do something about problems rather than things to disagree and argue about.  That does not leave quite so much time to spend calling one another RINO’s.

Let me give you a few examples of some accomplishments in Arizona by a legislature in which both houses are controlled by the Republicans, Republicans who try to mostly work together against the Democrats and not against one another.

  1.  In 2007 we passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act; it was passed by a Republican controlled legislature and signed by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  Yeah, that’s right, the Democrat now serving as Homeland Security Secretary.  It made it illegal for an employer to hire an employee who was in this country illegally. That law required employers to use the federal E Verify system.  It provided for sanctions against employers who failed to comply with its provisions.  By the way, I was chair of the legislative liaison committee of one the largest business organizations in Arizona at the time, not kibitzing about who was more or less conservative than whom from thousands of miles away.  Federal officials recently announced that illegal border crossings into Arizona from Mexico fell some 23% in 2008.  The recession helped, but the Act was a very significant factor, in my view.  Illegal immigrants from Mexico come into Arizona primarily, almost exclusively, for jobs.  Reduce the number of jobs available to illegal immigrants and the number of illegal immigrants decreases.  We sometimes confuse ourselves with oversimplifications.  Closing the border is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  The goal, the real objective, the end being sought, is to reduce to a de minimis level the inflow and presence in the country of illegal immigrants.  We are better off keeping our eye on the ball rather than focusing on who is the most or least conservative. 

  2.  The Arizona Legislature earlier this year passed the infamous SB1070.  It was passed by a Republican controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor, who succeeded Napolitano when she joined President Obama in Washington.  That, in my view, is one of the few, perhaps the only, positive thing(s) resulting from his election.  You surely know the story.  It was supposed to take effect July 29, this past Thursday.  In response to a law suit filed by the U. S. Justice Department, a federal judge appointed by President Clinton issued a temporary order restraining the four most important elements of the bill on the grounds that the federal lawsuit might well succeed.  Mock us if you wish.  Arizona Republicans have framed the issue on which President Obama is likely to be forced to run for reelection in 2012; it sure is not the one on which he wants to run.  Arizona SB1070 is framing the issue in many races for the U. S. Congress across the country in 2010.  And we did it as Republicans mostly working together, not pointing fingers and calling one another RINO’s.

You also wrote:  “Better just to say: “Republicans believe that the essential thing is to gain complete border control and security. Then the rest of the problem can be dealt with”

Not really, in my view.  In spite of the amplitude of the rhetoric to the contrary, Arizona Republicans are doing something about it now.  Yeah, we are being called racists, and that is among the nicer comments.

You also wrote:  “First, no Republican plan has any chance of being passed by both houses and surviving an Obama veto.”

True only if we don’t elect a sufficient number of Republicans, possibly including a few RINO’s, in the November elections this year.  Maybe not very likely, but certainly possible.  Let’s just get it done instead of fighting among ourselves.  A RINO who votes with the Republican Party in the organization of the U. S. Senate in January 2011 is much to be desired over any Democrat, ANY Democrat.

And I would be remiss if I did not point out that our incumbent not-sufficiently-conservative Republican senior U. S. Senator, who has had several epiphanies on immigration, among other subjects, looks to be about 20 points ahead of his Republican Tea Party primary challenger and, in my view, is not likely to be very seriously challenged in the general election.  But what do I know?

God bless America, all of it, Red States and Blue States, Democrats and Republicans.

I was dissappointed to see Sarah Palin interviewed on immigration reform. She was so scared of being trapped into being accused of supporting “amnesty” that she refused to answer what she would do with the 12 million or so illegal aliens, assuming that the border was first better secured as she was advocating.

President Bush’s plan, rejected in the US Senate by a majority of Republicans, stated that the illegal immigrants should not be granted automatic permanent residency or amnesty, but would be given the opportunity to a path towards citizenship in which they would learn English, pay a substantial fine, have a job for a number of years, clear a background check and pay their taxes. Their immigration application would go to the end of the application line. That sounded too much like “amnesty” for many conservatives. However, many that opposed it have refused to come up with a viable alternative.

Here is an interesting article in the Washington Post on this subject, focussing on Rep. Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/01/AR2010080103518.html?wpisrc=nl_politics